The Pulitzer Prizes | Iran owned TWA jet same year one of its other 747s exploded (http://archive.pulitzer.org/archives/5919)

The Boeing 747-100 jetliner that crashed off Long Island was operated by TWA for all but one of its nearly 25 years in service. For exactly 365 days in the mid-1970s, the plane belonged to the Imperial Iranian Air Force.
No connection has been established between that fact and the fiery midair explosion that knocked the plane out of the sky last week, killing all 230 on board.
But it was during the jet's 12-month stint in the Iranian military that another TWA 747 owned by Iran was destroyed near Madrid in a midair explosion much like the one that destroyed Flight 800 off Long Island last week. It was the only other time a 747 has burst into flames in midair.
No cause was determined in the Madrid crash, but officials believe that either an unusual blast of wind tore the left wing off or a stray electrical spark from a fuel-system pump, perhaps triggered by lightning, ignited jet fuel fumes inside the left wing.
As a result, the Federal Aviation Administration in 1976 ordered 747 wings checked for fuel leaks, and Boeing subsequently took steps to make the fuel system safer.

But it's not known whether those safeguards were taken on the 747 that burst into flames off Long Island. At the time, the plane was exempt from civil-aviation rules and directives because it was in military service.

goes on

lomapaseo

18th Jul 2016, 16:27

Factually wrong.

and given new birth by the speculation in the article

I believe all this was covered in the TWA800 thread many years ago.

Lonewolf_50

18th Jul 2016, 18:41

CONSO:
Coincidence does not equal correlation, nor does it equal causation.:ugh:

er340790

18th Jul 2016, 18:47

Anyone else losing the will to live?????

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

andrasz

18th Jul 2016, 19:01

Link to Madrid report, if anyone interested in the facts: http://lessonslearned.faa.gov/PanAm214/Iranian_AccReport.pdf

Lonewolf_50

18th Jul 2016, 19:21

This thread has some value: andrasz, thank you for that link. Most informative. :ok:

CONSO

18th Jul 2016, 20:15

Factually wrong.

and given new birth by the speculation in the article

I believe all this was covered in the TWA800 thread many years ago.
SORT of sad- really- that at this late date some still claim some sort of conspiracy- I posted this article as part of a memorial article in the seattle times. My purpose was not to reopen then investigation-but to put a few FACTS and data out which IMO the majority of readers were likely to be unaware of.
As a sideline- I know/knew a few people who after that time worked on and developed the ' molecular sive' ( my description ) method which separates out the nitrogen from the air which then blankets the fuel tank(s).

Which makes me curious- just what items in the complete article posted do you claim are factually incorrect?

Lonewolf_50

18th Jul 2016, 21:09

Which makes me curious- just what items in the complete article posted do you claim are factually incorrect? Do you consider this phrasing accurate, or an attempt at sensationalism?

a midair explosion much like the one that destroyed Flight 800 off Long Island last week. How did this guy arrive at "much like the one that destroyed" TWA 800? Didn't show his work. They were both in the air. Both had what investigators classify as an explosion. He concludes they were alike. He doesn't show his work.
a catastrophic mechanical failure can detonate a 747 jumbo jet It takes a certain style of writing, tabloid, to come up with that part of a sentence
Compare those two to a sensible and accurate statement here:
It was descending into Madrid for a refueling stop in a thunderstorm when witnesses reported an in-flight explosion and fire at about 6,000 feet. Simple and descriptive, no embellishment.

The quoted journo is capable if accurate descriptive writing, but chooses embellishment ... to achieve what?
I posted this article as part of a memorial article in the seattle times
If that was your article, then consider this a criticism of your alleged professionalism.

About the detonate bit.
A detonation is what starts an explosion, though in sloppy usage it seems to have become a synonym for explosion.

Journalists are allegedly very good with words: it's their art and their craft. It never ceases to disgust -- not amaze -- me how careless reporters are with their use of language. My original background was military, and over time I got to be less and less impressed by how things in that realm are portrayed in the press.

But maybe journalists are not being careless, since words and stories are their profession. Maybe, journalists and are playing games.

CONSO, what did you hope to achieve by posting this in R&N?
It isn't news (Looks like it got moved from R&N to JB).

CONSO

18th Jul 2016, 21:58

If that was your article, then consider this a criticism of your alleged professionalism.
I'm not too sure just what set you off- other than you didn't like the reporters style of writing, nor paid attention to the date of the article.

Professional Journalists ( who comnprise the Pulitizer Committee) seem to disagree with you re the article and the reporter.

Why you infer that it was MY article is beyond me.

What I linked to was a supportIng section of a more com plete article published yesterday in the Seattle Times

I considered it news only because of the anniversary- and a variety of current events re IRAN and coming sales by Boeing of new airplanes, etc.

In any case- you are entitled to your opinion- but not to your so called facts- takeit up if you want with the NTSB and FBI and whomever else re wording and parsing . .

End of Discussion

Lonewolf_50

18th Jul 2016, 22:09

Why you infer that it was MY article is beyond me. You said you posted it. Your words from your post are ...
I posted this article as part of a memorial article in the seattle times What was I supposed to think?

I considered it news only because of the anniversary- and a variety of current events re IRAN and coming sales by Boeing of new airplanes, etc.
Understand. It wasn't presented that way in the OP, but seen in that light I can see the association.

vapilot2004

18th Jul 2016, 23:11

The report bears witness to a very thorough investigation with an unlucky lightning strike and subsequent tank explosion being the probable cause of the crash. The causal suppositions here are better supported than those put forth in the explanation of TWA 800.

It was a bit odd that maintenance records were not forthcoming from the Iranians. Also, the report had a few mistypes, uncharacteristic for a typical NTSB document. All in all, very interesting. Thank you CONSO for starting the thread.

The aircraft was a military logistics flight en route to McGuire Air Force Base, U.S.A., from Teheran, Iran,

Ah, the good old days.

CONSO

19th Jul 2016, 00:06

Thank you CONSO for starting the thread.

Much appreciated.

Also interesting IMO is that in this case (TWA800 ) and the recent egyptair (804) disaster, an electrical ' short ' might be a driver- whether by sparks from lightning strike or simply fatigue and rubbing is of course uncertain and may never be known.

Cazalet33

19th Jul 2016, 02:23

Lightning strikes don't explode 747s.

It's never happened, and there are good physical reasons why it doesn't.

CONSO

19th Jul 2016, 03:38

Lightning strikes don't explode 747s.

It's never happened, and there are good physical reasons why it doesn't.
AND you have read the report? and your expertise on the subject is ? In the case of the Iran 747, a poor connection/shielding was suspect. By the way- on a typical ' aluminum' airframe it is true that normally the nose, wingtips, leading edge of nacelles, and tips of elevators are considered class I- re strike zones, since they are commonly composite material and have extra protection built in - to handle about 200,000 amps strike. The rest of the dry bay areas and body sections are typical zone 2 being usually all aluminum. And the wing tanks are well protected and c°nsidered zone 3. BUT high voltage hits can travel thru shielding and in the case of the 747, that is *****PROBABLY *** What happened with a split- ungrounded shield internal to the tank.

So to say its NEVER happened- please support why you disagree with published reports on the Iran 747, etc and the results of many many tests . And then explain what had to be done to 777 composite tail and all of the 787 and also the B2 to avoid significant damage from lightning strikes.
Why one wants to argue without providing credible support on this thread is beyond me.

KenV

19th Jul 2016, 17:12

So to say its NEVER happened- please support why you disagree with published reports on the Iran 747, etc and the results of many many tests.Consider the source of the claim. C33 has an agenda, and agendas trump logic, science, documented reports, and corroborating tests.

Cazalet33

19th Jul 2016, 17:40

Please explain what you mean by that rather twitty term "agenda".

The NTSB had an "agenda". Boeing, in what is quaintly called "the Party sytem", had an "agenda".

The conflict in the agenda of the NTSB in the two sisterships fuel tank explosions is that they contradicted themselves irrevocably. The two NTSB explainaways cannot be reconciled, not even with themselves, never mind with the truth.

Lonewolf_50

19th Jul 2016, 17:45

The conflict in the agenda of the NTSB in the two sisterships fuel tank explosions is that they contradicted themselves irrevocably. The two NTSB explainaways cannot be reconciled, not even with themselves, never mind with the truth. Let me ask: is it your position that the two explosions were due to the same cause? I am not sure how two reports can contradict each other when each investigates a separate accident.

Cazalet33

19th Jul 2016, 18:29

In one report, they concluded that an electrical spark cannot initiate such an explosion and therefore it didn't.

In the other report, they concluded that an electrical spark can initiate such an explosion and therefore it did.

Two successive build numbers in the factory. Both sold to TWA initially. Both sold to the Imperial Iranian Air Force subsequently. Both suffered fuel tank explosions. Both whitewashed by the 'party system' of the NTSB.

CONSO

19th Jul 2016, 18:52

In one report, they concluded that an electrical spark cannot initiate such an explosion and therefore it didn't.

In the other report, they concluded that an electrical spark can initiate such an explosion and therefore it did.

Two successive build numbers in the factory. Both sold to TWA initially. Both sold to the Imperial Iranian Air Force subsequently. Both suffered fuel tank explosions. Both whitewashed by the 'party system' of the NTSB.
In one report, they concluded that an electrical spark cannot initiate such an explosion and therefore it didn't.

Please cite that report by number and date link , part of the title page, and the conclusion page .

KenV

19th Jul 2016, 19:01

Please explain what you mean by that rather twitty term "agenda"."Twitty"? Nothing twitty here. Merriam Webster provides the following definition: an underlying often ideological plan or program

The two NTSB explainaways cannot be reconciled, not even with themselves, never mind with the truth. "explainaways"? The "truth"? What is your version of "the truth" and how does it resolve the "explainaways"?

In one report, they concluded that an electrical spark cannot initiate such an explosion and therefore it didn't.
In the other report, they concluded that an electrical spark can initiate such an explosion and therefore it did.Not even approximately correct, but I can see how those (false) statements fit some peoples' agenda.

Cazalet33

19th Jul 2016, 19:07

The truth is that both sisterships suffered fuel tank explosions.

Quite certainly, as a result of an internal spark from electrical wiring.

CONSO

19th Jul 2016, 21:31

My apologies to all for bothering to respond to caZAlet33- I should have realized he was a troll who delights in making BS responses to every thread in jet blast. :mad::mad: :ugh: